From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB4921A00FE for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:13:22 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <1410750802.24738.10.camel@concordia> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] powerpc/powernv: Check OPAL elog calls exist before using From: Michael Ellerman To: Michael Neuling Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:13:22 +1000 In-Reply-To: <1408423682-14297-3-git-send-email-mikey@neuling.org> References: <1408423682-14297-1-git-send-email-mikey@neuling.org> <1408423682-14297-3-git-send-email-mikey@neuling.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Stewart Smith , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 14:48 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > Check that the OPAL_ELOG_READ token exists before initalising the elog > infrastructure. > > This avoids littering the OPAL console with: > "OPAL: Called with bad token 74" > > Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling > --- > arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-elog.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-elog.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-elog.c > index bbdb3ff..518fe95 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-elog.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-elog.c > @@ -295,6 +295,10 @@ int __init opal_elog_init(void) > { > int rc = 0; > > + /* ELOG not supported by firmware */ > + if (!opal_check_token(OPAL_ELOG_READ)) > + return -1; > + The only caller does: /* Setup error log interface */ rc = opal_elog_init(); /* Setup code update interface */ opal_flash_init(); /* Setup platform dump extract interface */ opal_platform_dump_init(); /* Setup system parameters interface */ opal_sys_param_init(); /* Setup message log interface. */ opal_msglog_init(); } return 0; } So we may as well have it return void. Wanna send a follow-up patch for that. cheers